Evaluating Country Programmes - OECD Online Bookshop

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$CQE=U]^\]Z: KAZAKHSTAN - OECD Online Bookshop$

Evaluating Country Programmes 204 of German development co-operation in the priority areas in terms of a “structure-building” effect (a positive development impact). Evaluating the goal achievement (effectiveness) of a country programme therefore means analysing to what extent the goals specified in the country concept (or the priority area strategy papers), i.e. the intended development impact of the contribution of German development co-operation in the priority areas, have been achieved. This question can only be answered by looking at the individual projects being supported in the priority areas and their joint development impact. – Impacts and effects of the country programme: The preceding section has already given part of the answer to the question regarding the role of the country concept in assessing the impact of a country programme. The evaluation should consider both the intended and the unintended impacts and effects. If however, as mentioned in Box 8.3, the objectives of a country programme (i.e. the goals pursued in the priority areas) have not been stated clearly enough in the country concept or the priority area strategy papers, the assessment of the impact of the country programme is more difficult, but should nevertheless be attempted. The relevant question then is: What have been the (positive and negative) impacts and effects of German development cooperation on the development process in the priority areas? – Efficiency of the country programme: The criterion of efficiency refers to the ratio of the goals achieved to the costs incurred. Applied to country programmes, the question is: does the impact of the contribution of German development co-operation in the priority areas justify the costs? Or put differently: Could the same impact have been achieved at lower costs, i.e. with a less costintensive approach and project portfolio? The answer is difficult because a reliable yardstick is not easily available. The yardstick would have to be derived from the experience of either another donor active in the same priority area or a comparable priority area in a different country where the same impact has been achieved at lower costs. A partial answer to the question of efficiency can be obtained by evaluating the efficiency of the individual projects in the priority areas. – Sustainability of the country programme: The BMZ’s country concepts are designed to elaborate the strategy pursued by German development co-operation in the priority areas in such a way that a structure-building and sustainable impact is achieved. Consequently, the country concepts should provide information on the conditions that ensure the sustainability of the country programme. Sustainability of the country programme means that the development impact achieved will “survive” the end of Germany’s engagement in the priority areas. Here, the evaluation has to ask the same type of questions as in the case of a project evaluation. OECD 1999
OECD 1999 Country Assistance Strategies as a Management and Evaluation Instrument for Donors The relationship between country programme evaluations and project evaluations The preceding remarks show that the evaluation of a country programme and the evaluation of individual projects belonging to a country programme complement one another. – Country programme evaluations certainly cannot replace project evaluations. Much of the information needed to answer the above-mentioned questions with regard to the rationale, goal achievement, impact, effectiveness and sustainability of country programmes has to be distilled from the evaluation of the projects that make up the country programme. Furthermore, one should bear in mind that projects (even when they are part of a coherent strategy) often involve different partners (financing, executing and implementing agencies) and hence different accountabilities which require specific monitoring and evaluation. – On the other hand, a country programme evaluation is not just the sum of the evaluations of the individual projects. The starting point and frame of reference of a country programme evaluation has to be the corresponding country concept. – Except in the case of isolated projects which are not part of an integrated approach in a priority area, the evaluation of individual projects cannot be meaningful without a look at the country concept or the priority area strategy paper. This goes particularly for assessing the (intended) impact of a project which should be defined in the country concept. Final remarks This chapter has focused on the crucial role that the BMZ’s country concepts can and should play in the evaluation of country programmes of German development co-operation. The preceding sections call for two final remarks: – It has to be recalled that the BMZ’s country concepts are only binding for official financial and technical assistance. For the development co-operation programmes of German non-governmental organisations, the BMZ’s country concepts are just an orientation, despite the funding the NGOs receive from the BMZ budget. Consequently, the BMZ’s country concepts do not provide the same yardstick or frame of reference as in the case of official development assistance when it comes to the evaluation of the NGOs’ involvement in a country programme. In practice, much depends on how the term “orientation” is understood and applied by both the BMZ and the NGOs. – Of course, the evaluation of a country programme does not presuppose the existence of a formal country concept as discussed in our second section. Currently about 90 developing countries receive official financial and 205
Page 1 and 2:
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERAT
Page 3 and 4:
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERAT
Page 5 and 6:
Evaluating Country Programmes 4 The
Page 7 and 8:
Evaluating Country Programmes 6 SDC
Page 9 and 10:
OECD 1999 Glossary of Acronyms and
Page 11 and 12:
Introduction OECD 1999 Chapter 1 Co
Page 13 and 14:
Rationale, purpose and use OECD 199
Page 15 and 16:
OECD 1999 Country Programme Evaluat
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
DONOR INFLUENCES Evaluation skills
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
13.00-14.30 Lunch break 14.30-15.30
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
OECD 1999 FINLANDE/FINLAND Ms. Eeva
Page 47 and 48:
OECD 1999 PORTUGAL Mr. Mario Mendes
Page 49 and 50:
Mr. Wolfgang GRUBER Director, Proje
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Evaluating Country Programmes 54 It
Page 55 and 56:
OECD 1999 56 Mali . . . . . . . . .
Page 57 and 58:
Evaluating Country Programmes 58 -
Page 59 and 60:
Evaluating Country Programmes 60 po
Page 61 and 62:
Evaluating Country Programmes 62 Bo
Page 63 and 64:
Evaluating Country Programmes 64 -
Page 65 and 66:
Evaluating Country Programmes 66 In
Page 67 and 68:
Evaluating Country Programmes 68 Ti
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Evaluating Country Programmes 72 Re
Page 73 and 74:
Evaluating Country Programmes 74 pe
Page 75 and 76:
Evaluating Country Programmes 76 va
Page 77 and 78:
Evaluating Country Programmes 78 (e
Page 79 and 80:
Evaluating Country Programmes 80 Th
Page 81 and 82:
Evaluating Country Programmes 82 ou
Page 83 and 84:
Evaluating Country Programmes 84 Wi
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Evaluating Country Programmes 88 Ap
Page 89 and 90:
OECD 1999 Appendix 2.3 Complete Lis
Page 91 and 92:
OECD 1999 93 Complete list of known
Page 93 and 94:
OECD 1999 95 Complete list of known
Page 95 and 96:
OECD 1999 The CPE review instrument
Page 97 and 98:
OECD 1999 Appendix 2.5 List of Dono
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
OECD 1999 Checklist of questions (c
Page 103 and 104:
Country programme evaluations - See
Page 105 and 106:
Summary OECD 1999 Chapter 3 Country
Page 107 and 108:
Background OECD 1999 CPE in the Net
Page 109 and 110:
CPE in the Netherland’s Developme
Page 111 and 112:
OECD 1999 CPE in the Netherland’s
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Methodology OECD 1999 CPE in the Ne
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Evaluating Country Programmes 124 P
Page 123 and 124:
Evaluating Country Programmes 126 G
Page 125 and 126:
Evaluating Country Programmes 128 R
Page 127 and 128:
Evaluating Country Programmes 130 3
Page 129 and 130:
Evaluating Country Programmes 132 P
Page 131 and 132:
Evaluating Country Programmes 134 Y
Page 133 and 134:
Evaluating Country Programmes 136 N
Page 135 and 136:
Evaluating Country Programmes 138 O
Page 137 and 138:
Evaluating Country Programmes 140 p
Page 139 and 140:
Evaluating Country Programmes 142 R
Page 141 and 142:
Chapter 5 Country Assistance Evalua
Page 143 and 144:
Country Assistance Evaluation in th
Page 145 and 146:
OECD 1999 Country Assistance Evalua
Page 147 and 148:
OECD 1999 Country Assistance Evalua
Page 149 and 150: OECD 1999 Country Assistance Evalua
Page 153 and 154: Traditional tools: relevance, effic
Page 155 and 156: Measuring sustainability OECD 1999
Page 159 and 160: Rating country strategies and assis
Page 169 and 170: OECD 1999 Chapter 6 French Experien
Page 171 and 172: OECD 1999 French Experience with Co
Page 173 and 174: OECD 1999 French Experience with Co
Page 175 and 176: French Experience with Country Prog
Page 177 and 178: OECD 1999 Chapter 7 Issues for Coun
Page 179 and 180: Issues for Country Evaluation: The
Page 181 and 182: Issues for Country Evaluation: The
Page 183 and 184: OECD 1999 Issues for Country Evalua
Page 185 and 186: Introduction OECD 1999 Chapter 8 Co
Page 187 and 188: OECD 1999 Country Assistance Strate
Page 191 and 192: Country Assistance Strategies as a
Page 199: OECD 1999 Country Assistance Strate
Page 203 and 204: Introduction OECD 1999 Chapter 9 Th
Page 211 and 212: Executive summary OECD 1999 Chapter
Page 213 and 214: OECD 1999 Country Programme Plannin
Page 227 and 228: OECD 1999 Chapter 11 Real Progress:
Page 229 and 230: Real Progress: Fifty Years of USAID
Page 233 and 234: OECD 1999 Real Progress: Fifty Year
Page 249 and 250: Assessment OECD 1999 Real Progress:
Page 251 and 252:
Real Progress: Fifty Years of USAID
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Sectoral successes: activities with
Page 257 and 258:
Evaluation of macro-level performan
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
OECD 1999 Real Progress: Fifty Year
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
OECD 1999 Appendix 11.1 Sectoral an
Page 271 and 272:
OECD 1999 Bibliography Real Progres
show all

Evaluating Country Programmes - OECD Online Bookshop

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?